Judgment :- The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Transport Corporation against the Judgment and Decree dated 03.04.2006 made in MCOP No.110 of 2005 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Kallakurichi. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:- The respondent/claimant was injured in the motor traffic accident on 19.05.2005. On 19.05.2005 at about 08.30 a.m., the claimant was standing near Emmappair Village Bus Stop at the left side of the Emmappair to Thenkeeranur Road. At that time, a bus bearing Registration No.TN-32-N-1517 belonging to the appellant / Transport Corporation, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the claimant. Due to the accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and he was admitted in the Kallakurichi Govt. Hospital on the same day. Later he was shifted to Salem Government Hospital. The claimant claimed a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-before the Tribunal. The Transport Corporation resisted the claim. On the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:- a) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant / Transport Corporation or not? b) Whether the Transport Corporation is liable to pay the compensation to the claimant? After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal was of the view that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus belonging to the Transport Corporation and awarded a compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition. Aggrieved by the award, the Transport Corporation has filed the present appeal. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant / Transport Corporation submitted that the Tribunal is wrong in holding that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to the Transport Corporation. It is also submitted that the Tribunal had awarded excessive and exorbitant compensation, without basis and justification and that therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent / claimant submitted that the Tribunal had considered all the relevant materials and evidence available on record and came to the correct conclusion and awarded a just, fair and reasonable compensation. Hence the order passed by the Tribunal is in accordance with law. 5. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent / claimant submitted that the Tribunal had considered all the relevant materials and evidence available on record and came to the correct conclusion and awarded a just, fair and reasonable compensation. Hence the order passed by the Tribunal is in accordance with law. 5. Heard the counsel. On the side of the claimant, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 were marked. On the side of the Transport Corporation, one Balu was examined as R.W.1, who is the conductor of the bus and no documents were marked. P.W.1 is the claimant. P.W.2 is Dr.Shanmuga Sundaram. Ex.P1 is the certified xerox copy of F.I.R. Ex.P2 is the certified xerox copy of wound certificate. Ex.P3 is the certified xerox copy of the discharge book given by Salem Govt. Hospital. Ex.P4 is the certified xerox copy of M.V. Report. Ex.P5 is the xerox copy of section alteration report given by Police to Judicial Magistrate. Ex.P6 is the xerox copy of charge sheet given by S.I. of Police, Kallakurichi. Ex.P7 is the disability certificate issued by P.W.2. Ex.P8 is the X-ray. After considering the above materials and evidence available on record, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.1,25,000/-with 9% interest p.a. from the date of petition. The details of the compensation are as under:- Rupees Loss of income 1,02,000/-Pain and suffering 15,000/- Nourishment 5,000/- Transport expenses 3,000/- Total... 1,25,000/- =========== The claimant was 24 years old at the time of accident. In Ex.P2-wound certificate and Ex.P3-medical summary book, it is stated that the age of the claimant was 24 years at the time of accident. Also, in Ex.P7-Disability Certificate given by the Doctor, P.W.2, the age of the claimant is mentioned as 24 years. The nature of injuries are crush injuries in left foot and amputation in 4th and 5th finger in left leg and multiple injuries all over the body. The Doctor has given Ex.P7-Disability Certificate, wherein it is stated that the disabilities are permanent one and the percentage of disability was fixed at 30%. Ex.P8 is the X-ray. Due to the above injuries, the petitioner cannot walk speedily, which affects his day to day activities. The claimant is a servant in a Grocery Shop and he cannot lift bags and he is unable to work as before. Ex.P8 is the X-ray. Due to the above injuries, the petitioner cannot walk speedily, which affects his day to day activities. The claimant is a servant in a Grocery Shop and he cannot lift bags and he is unable to work as before. The claimant stated that he is earning Rs.5,000/- per month, but there is no evidence to substantiate the same. Hence the Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.2,000/- and calculated the annual income at Rs.24,000/- (Rs.2,000/-x 12). Even though the Doctor has assessed that there is 30% disability, the Tribunal fixed the disability at 25%. Thereafter the Tribunal computed the yearly loss of income at Rs.6,000/-on the basis of 25% disability. The age of the claimant was 24 years at the time of accident. Hence the Tribunal adopted 17 multiplier and calculated the loss of income at Rs.1,02,000/-(Rs.6,000/- x 17). Counsel appearing for the appellant / Transport Corporation vehemently contended that the Tribunal ought not to have adopted the multiplier of 17 and the correct multiplier that should be adopted is 12. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the correct multiplier that should be adopted is 12. If 12 multiplier is adopted the loss of income works out to Rs.72,000/- (Rs.6,000/-x 12). Hence the loss of income is modified to Rs.72,000/- as against the sum of Rs.1,02,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering. After taking into consideration the nature of the injuries, it would be appropriate and reasonable to award a sum of Rs.20,000/-towards pain and suffering as against the sum of Rs.15,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards nourishment and Rs.3,000/-towards transport expenses, which are very reasonable and hence they are confirmed. Therefore, the details of the modified compensation as per the above discussion are as under:- Rupees Loss of income 72,000/- Pain and suffering 20,000/- Nourishment 5,000/- Transport expenses 3,000/- Total... 1,00,000/- =========== Thus the claimant is entitled to the modified compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- as against the compensation of Rs.1,25,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. The interest rate awarded by the Tribunal at 9% p.a. from the date of petition is excessive and it would be appropriate and reasonable to reduce the same to 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition. 6. 1,00,000/- =========== Thus the claimant is entitled to the modified compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- as against the compensation of Rs.1,25,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. The interest rate awarded by the Tribunal at 9% p.a. from the date of petition is excessive and it would be appropriate and reasonable to reduce the same to 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition. 6. The appellant / Transport Corporation is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, after adjusting the amount if any already deposited, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire amount from the deposit. 7. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of with the above modification. No costs.